alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: DIET DRUGS : MDL NO. 1203

(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/ :

DEXFENFLURAMINE) :

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION :

:

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: :

-----------------------------------:

CYNTHIA ACOSTA, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20143

WYETH, et al. : 

ROSALIE BERGERON, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20136

WYETH, et al. : 

KAREN BILLINGSLY, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-25058

WYETH, et al. : 

LANA BOND :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-21919

WYETH, et al. : 

GALE BOUCHILLON, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-27039

WYETH, et al. : 

BETH BRANCH, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-25106

WYETH, et al. : 

TARUS BURRELL :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-21364

WYETH, et al. : 

ANNIE CALLIHAN :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-21754

WYETH, et al. : 

PAMELA CHAPMAN, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-25095

WYETH, et al. : 

ROSALYN DAIGLE, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-20130

WYETH, et al. : 

PATTI FORD, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-24045

WYETH, et al. : 

JOANN FORISTER, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20204

WYETH, et al. : 

KAREN FRANK, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-26163

WYETH, et al. : 

GAIL MARY FRAZIER :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-20684

WYETH, et al. : 

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 21 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 1 of 2
-2-

MARTHA GREEN, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-20234

WYETH, et al. : 

PEGGY MARTINEZ, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20135

WYETH, et al. : 

EDDIE NICHOLSON, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20211

WYETH, et al. : 

ERISTIS POINDEXTER :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-25091

WYETH, et al. : 

PAULA POMAMSKY, et al. :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-20252

WYETH, et al. : 

JERRY SUBLET :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-24043

WYETH, et al. : 

SHARRON TURNER :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-25087

WYETH, et al. : 

ESTATE OF ANNIE LOIS WREN :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-21678

WYETH, et al. : 

FAY MINNIE WREYFORD :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-20799

WYETH, et al. : 

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 

AND NOW, this day of June, 2005, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motions of counsel for plaintiffs in the abovecaptioned actions to withdraw as counsel are DENIED without

prejudice. See Hargrove v. City of Philadelphia, Civ.A. No.

93-5760, 1995 WL 550441 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 1995); Greene v.

Rubin, Civ.A. No. 95-2415, 1995 WL 723188 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5,

1995); E.D. Pa. R. Civ. P. 5.1 (2005).

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 21 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

February 13, 1952

No. 56377.

protest 174056-K (New York).

#### Dadourian Export Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of articles of which metal is the component material of chief value, other than ores or concentrates or crude metal, which were to be used in remanufacture by melting, and that they have been used in remanufacture by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
p.1 

OAR Box 1413 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

45) 11-1-45 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/9/2008 3:11:22 PM Sheet 45 of 114 
P.2 

A-94-52 

ii-r - iiS: 

Docket No. A-94-52 

Category II-I 

The following information is located in the confidential files ofthe Director, Emission 

Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This information is 

confidential pending final determination by the Administrator and is not available for public 

inspection. 

Premix, Inc., Ashtabula, OH - control technology Info. 9 pp. No Date. 

A*-. . 

f

,r:v

 9"o ICOOI 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

CN-308-21 

94185-C18-03
No. 51977.

#### Netherlands Purchasing Commission *v.*United States,

protest 114416-K/12724 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that duty was assessed on one case of rayon knit underwear marked “A. G. S. 11985 Batavia” and that it has since been verified by the customs officials that the said merchandise was not imported. The issue was held not to be whether or not there was a compliance with the regulations but whether or not there was in fact a nonimportation. *(United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) followed. In accordance with stipulation and on the authority of the case cited the claim that no duty is assessable on the merchandise was sustained.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 12, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 12, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0126. TIFT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, INC. d/b/a TIFT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SU18CV2527
No. 55185.

#### Majestic Wine & Spirits, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 136996-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In .accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held ithat duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the ■cognac as were reported by the inspector as not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### William L. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CEDAR FAIR L.P., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-3100.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 3, 2001.

Before NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and ZATKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, William Moore, brought suit against defendant, Cedar Fair, L.P., alleging that it had discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and comparable Ohio statutes. He also raised state tort claims. Plaintiff now appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant on all claims.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.

Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion filed on December 17, 1999.
No. 52216.

protests 612905-G, etc. (New York).

#### Arthur H. Lee & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kinciieloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 21

ITEM 14  (C)
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         As of December 31, 2000, Registrant had the following active direct or
indirect subsidiaries, all of which were wholly owned (except as noted),


                                                          State or Jurisdiction
                                                             Incorporation
                                                     --------------------------
American Bank Note Company..................................     New York
ABN Investments, Inc........................................     Delaware
   ABN Equities, Inc........................................     Delaware
     American Bank Note Company Grafica e Servicos Ltda
          (owned 77.5%).....................................     Brazil
            Gemplus Banknote Ltda (owned 50%)...............     Brazil
American Banknote Australasia Holdings, Inc.................     Delaware
   ABN Australasia Limited..................................     Australia
     ABN Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd.......................     Australia
            Leigh Mardon Payment Systems Pty Ltd                 Australia
            ABN Australasia Ltd.
                  (d/b/a Leigh Mardon Group)................     Australia
            American Banknote New Zealand Limited...........     New Zealand
     American Banknote Pacific Pty Ltd.......................    Australia
ABN CBA, Inc..................................................   Delaware
   ML&C Pty Ltd...............................................   Australia
ABN South America, Inc........................................   Delaware
   Compania Radilur S.A.......................................   Uruguay
     Transtex S.A.............................................   Argentina
ABN Government Services, Inc..................................   Delaware
   Sati B.V...................................................   Netherlands
     CPS Technologies S.A.....................................   France
(Reap. Dec. 10993)

#### Windsor Pen Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 10552; 11844; 11845.

(Decided May 26, 1965)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between.counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered toy the above appeals for reappraisement consists of radio sets exported from Japan subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That radio sets are *not*identified in the Final List published by *the Secretary*of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; and that the merchandise involved herein was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said radio sets, the price at which such or similar radio sets were freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $2.63 per set.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeals for reappraisement may toe deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper *687basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value in each case was $2.63 per set.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
1

 Parties include all persons, corporations or other business entities, and insurance companies with

an interest in the case, and each entity with an interest in the case must attend the conference. In the case of

corporate or other business entities, the corporate official with ultimate settlement authority is required to attend. 

Where an insurance company is involved, a representative with ultimate settlement authority is also required to

attend. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bergeron : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

First Federal Mortgage : NO.02cv4437

:

:

ORDER

A Settlement Conference in the above-captioned case will be held on December 9,

2003 at 1:00pm before the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa, United States Magistrate Judge, in

Room 3042, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The Court assumes that settlement of this case is a real possibility, and the Court

has set aside the entire day for this conference. Parties are to remain present until expressly

released by the Court.

Counsel are directed to have clients with ultimate authority to settle

physically PRESENT in the courtroom for the duration of this conference.

1

 

Counsel are further directed to complete the enclosed Settlement Conference

Summary to be faxed or mailed to Chambers on or before December 2, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

 

Hon. Linda K. Caracappa

267-299-7640/267-299-5075 Fax

Date: November 6, 2003

cc: FAXED

 M. MAILMAN

Case 2:02-cv-04437-PBT Document 15 Filed 11/06/2003 Page 1 of 1
GWA System NET Application 

Reference Sheet 

USSGL Accounts* by NET Transfer Type 

September 21, 2010 

Appropriation Transfers 

USSGL 

Account Title 

4128 Amounts Appropriated From Specific Invested TAFS - Transfers-In 

4129 Amounts Appropriated From Specific Invested TAFS - Transfers-Out 

4167 Allocations of Realized Authority - Transferred From Invested Balances 

4170 Transfers - Current-Year Authority 

4173 Nonallocation Transfers of Invested Balances - Transferred 

4175 Allocation Transfers of Current-Year Authority for Non-Invested Accounts 

Balance Transfers 

4176 Allocation Transfers of Prior-Year Balances 

4190 Transfers - Prior-Year Balances 

4191 Balance Transfers - Extension of Availability Other Than Reappropriations 

4192 Balance Transfers - Unexpired to Expired 

4193 Balance Transfers - Unobligated Balances - Legislative Change of Purpose 

4356 Cancellation of Appropriation From Invested Balances 

4831 Undelivered Orders - Obligations Transferred, Unpaid 

4931 Delivered Orders - Obligations Transferred, Unpaid 

Transfers to General Fund Receipt Accounts (formerly Capital Transfers) 

4151 Actual Capital Transfers to the General Fund of the Treasury, Current-Year Authority 

4152 Actual Capital Transfers to the General Fund of the Treasury, Prior-Year Balances 

4392 Permanent Reduction - New Budget Authority 

4393 Permanent Reduction - Prior-Year Balances 

Reappropriation 

4390 Reappropriations - Transfers-Out 

* USSGL Accounts effective Fiscal 2011; Refer to USSGL TFM S2 10-02 (August 2010), Part 2 for a complete 

listing of USSGL accounts and definitions
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEWART DALZELL 10613 United States 

 Courthouse

 JUDGE Independence Mall West

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19106

 

 267-299-7399

 

December 16, 2002 

Frederick T. Lachat, Esq. Harold E. Vileto, Esq.

The Curtis Center - 4th Floor 1515 Market St., Ste. 1802

Philadelphia, PA 19106 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Ilene Schafer, Esq. Lynne A. Sitarski, Esq.

121 S. Broad St., Ste. 800 Deputy City Solicitor

Philadelphia, PA 19107 1515 Arch St., 14th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Michael S. Blume, Esq.

One Parkway Bldg., 15th Fl.

Philadelphia, PA 19102-1595

Re: C.A. No. 02-4428, Reeves v. City of Phila. Police

Dept., et al.

Dear Counsel:

Judge Dalzell has set the referenced case for a Rule 16

conference at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, January 3, 2003, in his

chambers.

As you will see from the enclosed Scheduling Policy

Statement, Judge Dalzell allots between ten and twenty minutes

for these conferences. You should review the Scheduling Policy

Statement before completing the "Conference Information Report"

enclosed with this letter. You should bring the Conference

Information Report with you to the Rule 16 conference.

At the close of the conference, you will receive an

Order from Judge Dalzell that will list firm dates for the

completion of discovery, other pretrial submissions and trial

that will be set at the conference.

Very truly yours,

Eileen Adler

Courtroom Deputy

ec

Case 2:02-cv-04428-SD Document 12 Filed 12/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:07 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/09/2011 11:35 AM

Subject: Impact of ULSD State Requirements on Boiler SO2 reductions

Cortney,

The baseline SO2 emissions for light oil-fired boilers in NY, NJ, and ME

(the only States with final Regs that apply) are less than 300 tons per

year (<0.3% of the baseline). It follows that the impact of these laws

on the boiler MACT benefits would be negligible. I also did an

extremely conservative back of the envelope calculation for all liquid

units in these States (included resid. oil, which does not appear to be

covered by the State laws), and the baseline was about 10,000 tons, or

about 1% of the total baseline.

The other NE States are either considering similar legislation, not

considering any legislation that we know of, or have legislation that

only kicks in if all of the States do something similar (CT). Finally,

most of the legislation kicks in after the projected boiler MACT

compliance date.

Bottom line is that this does not appear to be an issue that is

significant for the boiler MACT.

Thanks!

Brian
Case No. 18,125.

#### SMITH v. WELSH.

[See Case No. 13,126.]
April 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Original background document Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice

Impacts sent to OMB

FROM: Marc Thomas

Office Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

The attached document is a superceded copy of the Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice

Impacts that was sent to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 13, 2010. Changes

were later made to this document, in part, due to OMB comments and a re vised version is posted

in the docket.

Attachment
### combustionsurvey

- Additional information re reconsideration

-----Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/ 16/2011 03:29PM -----
To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Toni Jones/RTP/U SEPA/US@EPA From: "Shannon Broome" <sbroome@pacbell.net> Date: 07/15/2011 09:11PM Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Additional information re reconsideration (See attached file: Additional Information Submitta l for Reconsideration.pdf)

Dear Mr. Shrager and Ms. Jones:
Please find attached the Auto Industry Forum’s submitt al regarding additional information regarding reconsideration of the Boiler MACT and CISWI rules. Please contact me with any questions. Thanks

<<...>>
Best regards,

Shannon S. Broome

5001 Proctor Avenue Oakland, CA 94618 510-985-1710 (ph)/510-816-1710 (c) This communication (including any attachments) is intende d to be privileged under applicable law and is only fo r the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibit ed.

=================================================== == Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with IRS requ irements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties. Any legal advice expressed in this message is being delivered to you solely for your use in connection with the matters addressed herein and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity or used for an y other purpose without our prior written consent.

=================================================== =========================



### = From: Brian Shrager <Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov> To: <combustionsurvey@erg.com> Date: 7/16/2011 3:30 PM Subject: Additional information re reconsideration Attachments: Additional Information Submittal for Reconsideration.pdf Page 1 of 1

8/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpw ise\4E21AE7DDO

...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-576-2

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NOS. 16-3357, 20-2636

SHAMEK HYNSON :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant Shamek 

Hynson’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(Document Nos. 390, 455 and 471) and the Government’s Responses in opposition thereto, it is 

hereby ORDERED, for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Memorandum, the Motion is 

GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART and Defendant shall be re-sentenced on Count 33 

only.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no Certificate of Appealability shall issue for the reasons 

articulated in the accompanying Memorandum.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez

_______________________

Juan R. Sánchez, C.J. 

Case 2:05-cr-00576-JS Document 499 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

- against -

DAVID FORREST and T. BEAUCLERC ROGERS IV,

Defendants.

Civil Action

No. 02-CV-4435

DECLARATION OF STUART COTTON

I, STUART COTTON, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Mound, Cotton, Wollan & Greengrass,

One Battery Park Plaza, New York, New York 10004. I am counsel of record for New

Hampshire Insurance Company in litigation arising out of the financing of the film “It Had To Be

You.” I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a

witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath.

2. I submit this declaration in support of the opposition of Lexington

Insurance Company (“Lexington”) to the motions of T. Beauclerc Rogers IV (“Rogers”) and

David Forrest (“Forrest”) to dismiss or stay prosecution of the Complaint filed in this Court by

Lexington against them.

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 18 Filed 12/24/2002 Page 1 of 2
-2-

3. The film “It Had To Be You” was financed by a California bank, Silicon

Valley Bank (“SVB”) and litigation relating to an insurance policy issued with respect to this

film was brought by SVB in California (but has now been resolved). Many of the individuals

who have relevant knowledge pertaining to the insurance aspects of this film and who were

deposed in the litigation or were scheduled to be deposed are United States-based and, in

particular, California-based. These individuals include various SVB employees (Carole Diane

Lemay, Paul Wyckoff), the film’s producer (Neil Kaplan), sales representatives (Gene George,

Ian Jessel), the insurers’ “designee” (Martin Fink) and the Completion Guarantor (Steve

Ransohoff).

/s/ Stuart Cotton

Stuart Cotton

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 18 Filed 12/24/2002 Page 2 of 2